The BMD-4M. I've always wondered whether that combo 100mm/30mm cannon was effective but on paper it seems like a pretty good idea. What isn't in doubt is the fact that Russian Para-troopers have mobility that our own 82nd doesn't. Sparks was a madman but he was right...M-113's would be perfect for use by the 82nd.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
BMD-4M. Airborne Fighting Vehicle.
The BMD-4M. I've always wondered whether that combo 100mm/30mm cannon was effective but on paper it seems like a pretty good idea. What isn't in doubt is the fact that Russian Para-troopers have mobility that our own 82nd doesn't. Sparks was a madman but he was right...M-113's would be perfect for use by the 82nd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
IMHO, the biggest problem with any air-dropped IFV is how do you drop and support enough of them to be worthwhile? The Russian IL-76 can only carry a pair of BMP-4s. A US C-130 could only carry one, and a C-17, three.
ReplyDeleteAnd once on the ground, those vehicles will use prodigious amounts of fuel. Better hope they capture a long airfield soon.
Fuel is an issue. But most of the vehicles have ranges of 400km and fuel tanks of about 500ltr. If we say for argument that 500ltr of fuel is .5 tonne and we say a vessel to carry it safely via parachute weighs another .5 tonne (that is excessive but it makes the maths easier!) if we have 300 AFV vehicles in the field (3 batts of inf and 1 light tank battalion) then we need 15 C130 or 6 C17 deliver a fresh supply of fuel. Too much for the UK but nothing for the US. Even double that wouldn't be too much of an issue for the US. And that is even allowing for heavy combat usage. (Lets not forget that tracks make offroading easy and the tracked vehicle is under less strain than the equivalent wheeled vehicle off tarmac.) As long as somebody was holding the start I think the US could just about to support a formation as described for a limited period. Especially if the armour drop was made to support an amphibious landing for a major operation like an invasion not a raid. That is to say the armoured force isn't going in alone, there is friendly held territory to fight towards or friendly forces fighting towards you, and the armour force is operating for than a day or two. It would scare the heck out of me with the USMC coming up the beach and the 82nd running around in AFV shooting stuff to my rear!
ReplyDeleteOne light Russian AFV you don't see much of is the Sprut 125mm. There is footage of it somewhere on YouTube shooting its main armament while swimming......
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat's on top of all of the other supplies, spares and munitions they need. C-17s are in short supply during major conflicts.
It would take 150 sorties to drop all of those vehicles from C-17s, assuming only 2 per sortie due to airdrop constraints.
Perhaps a more reasonable option would be to use them in small platoon or company-sized packets, Distributed Ops style. They would have to rely more on stealth though, so perhaps a quieter, wheeled vehicle makes more sense.
Yes I got carried away running numbers for fuel didn't I? It is just that fuel is always use to beat the idea of air dropped armour to death. I also forget the USAF doesn't have as many C5 in service these days. But a drop of 50/60 BDM could easily be supported and have the fire power if something nasty was coming over the beach. 3 flying columns acting in mutual support. Many of the world's less professional armies would struggle to deal with disruption to their rear.
ReplyDeleteNot carried away. It was a useful exercise. Made me want to go research the current air drop fuel delivery options.
ReplyDeleteI go back and forth on airborne armor. I can see the value in a relatively small, but highly-mobile and hard-hitting unit. But do you get most of the bang-for-buck just giving airborne vehicular mobility of any type?
Maybe do something like this instead.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a393869.pdf